In summary, if I could write the constitution as I saw fit, states wouldn't have rights and marriage policy would be set by the federal government. If we are going to leave marriage policy to the states, as the constitution currently does, I see no reason to carve out an exception for same-sex marriage. States already have the requirement to provide equal protection in all of their laws including marriage, and I believe this would require same-sex marriage. I have no problem with somebody pushing for an amendment to the constitution if they see a change as necessary. I would hope the amendment would be narrowly tailored, though, to address the specific problem or problems it is designed to address.
The problem with the current system is that voting is in fact an inferred right – Although accepted as a right by the general populace, the failure of the U.S. Constitution to directly enumerate it leaves it room for interpretation and manipulation. Thus, the U.S. government may decide who may and may not vote, so long as they do not violate certain guidelines such as the 15th and 19th amendments. The Constitution only prohibits the Government from banning its citizens from voting due to color, race, religion, sex, and the like. Another thing that many Americans don’t realize is that in the 2000 court case Bush v. Gore, the Supreme court ruled “The individual Citizen has no federal Constitutional right to vote,” Because of this, State Governments may infer through the 10th amendment that they too may regulate voter’s rights within their own jurisdictions as it states “The powers not delegated to the United S... ... middle of paper ... ...igher than it was before the passage of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court has refused to apply strict scrutiny to felon disenfranchisement except where discriminatory intent can be proven”.
The principle of democracy that is directly applicable to this situation is Equality under the Law. George Reynolds took his case to the Supreme Court in objection that he could not fully pursue his religion. He argued that the first amendment guarantees that persons will be free from any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That no federal law could interfere with a person’s religious belief or with actions based on those beliefs. That the federal law was unconstitutional and his conviction should be overturned.
The first amendment did not state that there was such a separation, but that there was a “wall of separation” which the government could not break. The misunderstood statement from Thomas Jefferson has resulted in Judges who ignore the Constitution and the original intent of the First Amendment of our Founding Fathers (Thomas Jefferson’s’ letter). The First Amendment does not say “Separation of Ch... ... middle of paper ... ...re to totally eliminate all references what we would swear on, the latest issue of “Sports Illustrated” when nothing is more important to us than the Bible why are we trying to take it out of our government and schools? Works Cited Marzilli, Alan. Religion in Public Schools.
Yet, as we can see here, the opinion of the federal government is that these state-based bans are unconstitutional. Therefore, states should no longer be able to discriminate against citizens in this way.. A final and swift decision on same sex marriage should be left up to the federal government. Individual states cannot be left to discriminate against citizens. States can no longer be allowed to violate the constitution and use religion to violate someone's rights. Likewise, a decision through the national government is the only way to ensure that treatment of individuals in every state, not to take away from the sovereignty of the states, but to increase the sovereignty of the individual.
What laws and protections do we have from a theocratic government? The answer is the first amendment, which brings me to my second point, that denying marriage is a violation of our civil rights. Indent-- The BIll of Rights guarantees that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [...]." This means that congress will pass no laws on religious grounds. But seeing as there are some who claim that marriage equality is also bad for society outside of religion, the Supreme Court has stated its opinion clearly.
Same sex marriage is the new topic for the 20th century. Gay marriage is not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing the US Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all Americans. Just like skin color, sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, so the gay minority must be protected from discrimination just as racial minorities are protected. Accordingly, the constitutional right to marry cannot be subject to a majority vote. The Constitution does guarantee freedom of religion for those who see homosexuality as inconsistent with their religion, but it also states that religious beliefs cannot be the basis for anti-gay rights legislation.
The Irrationality of Vermont’s Permission of Gay Marriage This essay explains the rationale behind the Vermont decision - and its effect upon conservative groups especially. In December of 1999, the Supreme Court of Vermont decided that it was, on balance, a violation of the Constitution of Vermont to withhold from couples of the same sex the benefits that flow to married couples. But the court did not think it proven that the laws on marriage had been animated by any intention to discriminate against women, lesbians, and gays in the way that other laws, in the past, had discriminated against blacks. The laws in Vermont were meant to secure marriage, or to establish marriage as the proper setting for sexuality, not to saddle people with disabilities. But just why legislators in the past bore such convictions-or whether those convictions were any longer defensible-the judges did not think they were in a position any longer to say.
The majority decisions for these cases focused on the individual’s right to procreative freedom, a right which did not depend on the individual’s family status. According to the Harvard Law Review, “the constitutional protection of private, consensual, nonprocrea... ... middle of paper ... ...he Court would likely have found “the use of contraceptives, even within marriage, (has been) condemned historically and therefore (should be) unprotected” (Law Review 14). Relying on American history and tradition, which is filled with prejudice and discrimination, prevented the Court from arriving at a just decision in this case. The decision in Bowers v. Hardwick was a mockery of justice. The majority failed to strike down a law which unfairly targeted homosexuals, but what’s worse, is that the statue in question violated everyone’s right to privacy, not just homosexuals’.
America is a country known for its freedom, yet people are told who they can and cannot marry. According to Kim Richards a case in Hawaii in 1993 where judges said the state’s constitution required a good reason not to give gay’s equal marriage rights. Congress was pushed to pass the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prevented homosexuals who were allowed to marry from receiving the usual benefits of marriage, like taxes and retirement. In response states have made their stand on domestic partnerships and civil unions. DOMA was passed out of fear that a lawsuit filed in Hawaii would make them allow same sex marriage.